Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No positive tests in men's 100

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No positive tests in men's 100

    IAAF just issued a statement confirming all doping tests conducted during the men's 100 meters gave negative results.
    Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

  • #2
    woo-hoo!

    Comment


    • #3
      http://www.iaaf.org/antidoping/news/newsid=53401.html

      Comment


      • #4
        The report states prior to the final...may be a stupid question but does that only mean tests prior to the final in Berlin? Or I guess, does that mean the rumors could have stemmed from a test BEFORE WCs ever began in Berlin?

        Comment


        • #5
          read again.... the last graf says pre final ALSO negative, after previous graf said final was negative.

          Comment


          • #6
            Ok....I read that the first time.

            Maybe this is a case of me just overlooking the obvious or just not knowing the process.

            My question was meant to ask are they ONLY tested after final events or can they be tested during any round?

            I guess I was operating under the assumption they can be tested during any round in which case saying "pre final ALSO negative" could mean random test in Berlin, testing after the heats, quarterfinals and/or semifinals could come up negative but a test BEFORE WCs ever began could be positive and thus be the source of the rumors. I just thought I remembered hearing stories of random testing in the village in Beijing last year.

            So I guess I'd know the answer to my question if I know the procedure: can they ONLY be tested AFTER a final? Or when they say BEFORE does that ONLY mean BEFORE a final IN BERLIN? Or does BEFORE automatically extend to BEFORE WCs as well?

            Comment


            • #7
              One would have to be an absolute idiot to test positive at an event that has presumably been on the calendar for quite some time, where one knows they will be tested. The surprise bit is kind of the whole point of out-of-competition testing. Sure, every so often you get the occasional moron at a major meet or spring a new test on people but I'm not sure why so many resources are wasted on testing at Worlds. Perhaps so the Kool Aid drinkers can say, "Hey we did 600 tests and none of them came back positive, problem solved! We have such an honorable and ethical sport! Statistics don't lie. Somebody whip up a press release."

              Comment


              • #8
                I sincerely hope this is a "straight-up" announcement, and there isn't any under the table stuff going on. And if that is true, then whoever was rumour-mongering should be spanked...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rasb
                  I sincerely hope this is a "straight-up" announcement, and there isn't any under the table stuff going on. And if that is true, then whoever was rumour-mongering should be spanked...
                  I wouldn't be surprised about the under table stuff going on.
                  on the road

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Speedfirst
                    I wouldn't be surprised about the under table stuff going on.
                    The tables in this sport nearly reach the ceiling there's so much going on underneath them.
                    Get any agent drunk enough and they'll tell you about the list of athletes that will not test positive at GP meets.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      May have been true in the old days, but with independent testing bodies now in charge of sampling, the meet directors/agents have zero influence on the procedure.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        And, of course, that list spouted by the drunken agent would never include one of his own clients...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gm
                          And, of course, that list spouted by the drunken agent would never include one of his own clients...
                          Those sleazeballs don't care. Profit motive decisively stomps ethics in most cases.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X